iMessage just happens, is integrated right into the default message interface (no thinking about it or dealing with different apps depending on the person) and provides all the nice features like read receipts, typing notification, encryption, and higher quality vid/pic sharing.

No, I have to switch to different apps for different people because I don't have an SMS plan and I pay per message. So if I message someone with an Android phone from my iPhone, I have to use Google Voice instead. If iMessage was cross platform, then you wouldn't have to deal with different apps. But it isn't.

You're in the minority, sorry.

So you're saying that people with iMessage don't ever text people with Android phones and wouldn't also like to knock $30 off of their carrier phone plan by dumping the ridiculously expensive text messaging component?

I think that all of the various chat apps that are being developed is a telling trend. People are texting less, but not communicating less. Texting is on the decline, and I think a cross platform data based app is likely to replace it eventually.

That is weird; I use iMessage, Skype, FaceBook, and very rarely SMS. I don't see how anyone can live in only a single message ecosystem unless they happen to be very lucky.

I think that all of the various chat apps that are being developed is a telling trend. People are texting less, but not communicating less. Texting is on the decline, and I think a cross platform data based app is likely to replace it eventually.

Exactly, instant messaging is growing rapidly, SMS growth is slowing or even in decline. An app that defaults to SMS for cross platform conversations is not even in the running.

The entry salary for an ordinary professional programmer is about 60K. 100K is not at all unusual for a reasonably competent programmer. It's a nice point for you that 12 per cent manage it, but that's not at all impressive overall. Simply put, from the bottom to the top of the market, you make less. The Journal has no axe to grind, but they apparently know the market better than you do.

You are, to a large extent here, comparing working as an employee with starting a business. This is invalid on its face.

The fact that 12 per cent make in this range is nice as far as it goes, but it is behind the curve. Six figures is hardly atypical.

The fact that more than 12% of people who land a job at an established software company may make more than $100K is utterly meaningless. The barriers to doing that are far higher than the barriers to publishing an app (this is obvious from some of the other data in the survey). What's more, either approach (getting a job with an existing company vs. starting your own company) can be practiced in any software market, which means there is zero justification for comparing unlike approach across different markets, i.e. comparing starting a mobile software business (or a sample which contains many instances of that) to working as an employee in an established non-mobile software business. I suspect if you looked solely at mobile developers employed by established companies, you'd find they make the same sort of money as non-mobile developers employed by established companies.

. . where it states that 60 per cent are full time (though mobile app development may not be their entire job). That alone makes your 12 per cent far less impressive. One can expect the vast majority of full timers to be in that high income class.

Do the math on that — it comes out as previously specified. 60% are full-time developers, and 65% of those work full time on mobile apps. That means only 39% of the total are working full-time on mobile apps. The fact that 12% of people in a market in which only 39% of participants are even working full time can make $100K+ makes this far less of a 'lottery' than you have described, particularly when a good fraction of those 39% are likely working at tiny, brand new companies.

. . .which looks to my eye similar. And, I know plenty of good folks at my workplace that tried the gaming industry and left because the hours were long and the pay comparatively low. You make money, but not quite as much.

Moreover, it makes a certain amount of sense. Since gaming dominates this market, too, you'd expect the salary to be comparable; no better, at any rate. And, it isn't.

You're trying to present this as supporting your position, but in fact it demolishes it. You have presented "buck an app" and other characteristics of the mobile app store market as being bad for developers. Data showing that developers in this market make similar money to developers writing non-mobile apps in the same product categories contradicts that.

And, despite what you say, it is clear from the article that sales are very hit and miss and, worse, the lifetime of these things is short.

You have presented zero evidence that this market is any more hit-driven than any other mass market. What fraction of total desktop software revenue does MS Office alone account for? I'd bet it's actually a larger fraction than what the most successful mobile app (Angry Birds, I guess) has ever captured in the mobile market.

In the rest of the programming world, you can expect a "hit" software package to last for years. That isn't nearly so true here.

Which creates opportunities for smaller firms, and over time spreads revenue over more developers/apps. You can't simultaneously complain that the market is too hit-driven and also complain about this.

And, it also emphasizes how low the functionality of this software is. One to three people, which is also what I long suspected. This is not going to produce a great number of high function apps (which, in any event, isn't what people want).

Everywhere one cares to look, one sees limitations compared to other markets.

You are simply treating the traditional desktop market as your baseline (except that you haven't presented very much data illustrating where that baseline is), and identifying any deviation from it as a "limitation". One could just as easily note that apparently there is considerable demand for small, simple apps, but traditional desktop distribution methods entirely failed to allow developers to monetize this.

If you mean video chat in general, sure, we had been doing that for years using iChat on OS X, but laptops don't fit into purses or pockets and travel around the house as well when you're chasing down grandchildren.

That is weird; I use iMessage, Skype, FaceBook, and very rarely SMS. I don't see how anyone can live in only a single message ecosystem unless they happen to be very lucky.

I guess I am lucky. I don't use iMessage, Skype, or facebook for messages (I hardly use facebook at all).

I don't see why you would need more than one message system.

iMessage handles friends+family+sms for people without iMessage or FacebookFacebook handles friends+family you don't have in your phonebookSkype is strictly for work and who you don't have in your phonebook or Facebook

If you mean video chat in general, sure, we had been doing that for years using iChat on OS X, but laptops don't fit into purses or pockets and travel around the house as well when you're chasing down grandchildren.

and you could have been doing it for years on your cellphone too.

If you say so. I never knew of a phone that could do it prior to the 2010 iPhone. Skype+Video was added after FaceTime and I had been using iChat AV since 2004; I had also used Yahoo! Video Chat, and knew of no phones in that time frame that had video chat.

To that effect I didn't even have a data plan until the fall of 2007 since I didn't have any need to use data until the iOS browser was released on an iPhone! I had worked prior at HP on WAP phones, and actively avoided using WAP (which, in hindsight, tells me HP was probably on the wrong track there).

The bottom line is that people don't mind using multiple apps for communicating, they do it now, they will do it in the future. SMS is for one thing, BBM/WhatsApp/iMessage/FB etc. is for another. Would be nice to have one standard everyone agreed on that is better than SMS, but I don't see it happening. BBM will be a nice addition to the marketplace.

I thought everyone loved apps, what's the problem with adding BBM to your phone? It's free and should be superior to the alternatives if they can replicate the Blackberry BBM experience on other platforms.

If you mean video chat in general, sure, we had been doing that for years using iChat on OS X, but laptops don't fit into purses or pockets and travel around the house as well when you're chasing down grandchildren.

and you could have been doing it for years on your cellphone too.

If you say so. I never knew of a phone that could do it prior to the 2010 iPhone. Skype+Video was added after FaceTime and I had been using iChat AV since 2004; I had also used Yahoo! Video Chat, and knew of no phones in that time frame that had video chat.

2005 Nokia 6680 could do videochat. If you count landline videochat I've seen devices that could do it in early 80's, know there were even earlier devices for it. Computer based videochat, seen it late 90's.

There's no problem with it at all! But from the perspective of Blackberry as a business, it makes no real sense at this point. WhatsApp is what they could have been had they done this years ago, like they should have, and now there are a number of services with higher user counts than BBM:

WhatsApp's devs have said they're up to 8 billion messages a month, compared to BBM's 10 billion. They might have captured all of that had they beaten those services to market since BBM had excellent user awareness even among non-BB users, and international presence. But they didn't move fast enough. That's not to say they can't get continued growth off this move, especially if it's a great app for all 3 platforms, but they may have had a far greater number of users had they done this a long time ago when the product was more relevant.

Random aside as a non-BB user: does BBM ID users based on their phone numbers, or on that code I used to see people trading? Both?

If you mean video chat in general, sure, we had been doing that for years using iChat on OS X, but laptops don't fit into purses or pockets and travel around the house as well when you're chasing down grandchildren.

and you could have been doing it for years on your cellphone too.

If you say so. I never knew of a phone that could do it prior to the 2010 iPhone. Skype+Video was added after FaceTime and I had been using iChat AV since 2004; I had also used Yahoo! Video Chat, and knew of no phones in that time frame that had video chat.

2005 Nokia 6680 could do videochat. If you count landline videochat I've seen devices that could do it in early 80's, know there were even earlier devices for it. Computer based videochat, seen it late 90's.

Videochat is ancient.

I've never seen a Nokia 6680 in the US; nor it's successor, the N70. Maybe it has to do with the fact that 3G adoption was still starting in 2005? I've read that only a couple million 3G subscribers existed in the US back then.

As for landline video chat, I already said I had been doing video chat since 2004, a year earlier than the Nokia 6680 had video chat. I had seen/used webcams at school since the year 1995.

As far as SMS replacements go, I think that there is a chance, albeit a small one, that network effects will kick in and the others will die. It would take a while from here, even if it happens, but it could. (Think VHS versus Beta, round 2).

The other thing would be that in the face of continued decline, SMS could become a free service at some point, monetized with "something else". It is not inevitable that they simply sit around and watch revenues go to zero. At some point, owing something akin to email is not something that will simply be allowed to fade into nothingness. Unless the carriers are really that dumb.

Random aside as a non-BB user: does BBM ID users based on their phone numbers, or on that code I used to see people trading? Both?

It's just based on whatever email address you want to give them to become your Blackberry ID. The PIN is getting phased out, though still used for secure BB to BB communications that can't be traced or logged, one of the reasons government loves BB. And hate it.

SMS will be a backup communications mechanism going forward, especially since AT&T decided to charge $20 for unlimited texts, talk about milking the golden goose. There is a window of opportunity for BB here if they execute on the software clients.

One of the reasons I dislike Whatsapp is it gives away my phone number to everyone I might want to text in my contacts. Spam like behavior is spam.

I thought everyone loved apps, what's the problem with adding BBM to your phone? It's free and should be superior to the alternatives if they can replicate the Blackberry BBM experience on other platforms.

The problem is that Blackberry could have potentially cornered the market. Now they aren't even in the lead. WhatsApp on a phone is now more useful to people than BBM is.

Random aside as a non-BB user: does BBM ID users based on their phone numbers, or on that code I used to see people trading? Both?

It's just based on whatever email address you want to give them to become your Blackberry ID. The PIN is getting phased out, though still used for secure BB to BB communications that can't be traced or logged, one of the reasons government loves BB. And hate it.

SMS will be a backup communications mechanism going forward, especially since AT&T decided to charge $20 for unlimited texts, talk about milking the golden goose. There is a window of opportunity for BB here if they execute on the software clients.

One of the reasons I dislike Whatsapp is it gives away my phone number to everyone I might want to text in my contacts. Spam like behavior is spam.

There was a window of opportunity for BB if they had executed on the software clients.

The iOS app store has been open since 2008; Android since 2009.

Now they are one among many, competing against Facebook, Skype, iMessage, Whatsapp, and SMS.

As far as SMS replacements go, I think that there is a chance, albeit a small one, that network effects will kick in and the others will die. It would take a while from here, even if it happens, but it could. (Think VHS versus Beta, round 2).

The other thing would be that in the face of continued decline, SMS could become a free service at some point, monetized with "something else". It is not inevitable that they simply sit around and watch revenues go to zero. At some point, owing something akin to email is not something that will simply be allowed to fade into nothingness. Unless the carriers are really that dumb.

SMS doesn't have the features to compete. GSMA created a competitor in RCS (Rich Communication Services) which is marketed under the name Joyn. It has had limited success as there has been no wide spread roll-out.

That is weird; I use iMessage, Skype, FaceBook, and very rarely SMS. I don't see how anyone can live in only a single message ecosystem unless they happen to be very lucky.

I guess I am lucky. I don't use iMessage, Skype, or facebook for messages (I hardly use facebook at all).

I don't see why you would need more than one message system.

iMessage handles friends+family+sms for people without iMessage or FacebookFacebook handles friends+family you don't have in your phonebookSkype is strictly for work and who you don't have in your phonebook or Facebook

So knock out facebook because I don't give a shit about it and all of a sudden you are down to two. I don't need skype as I have zero need to video conference. I have unlimited texts so I don't care about how many I send. And all of a sudden you are down to just one.

If you mean video chat in general, sure, we had been doing that for years using iChat on OS X, but laptops don't fit into purses or pockets and travel around the house as well when you're chasing down grandchildren.

and you could have been doing it for years on your cellphone too.

If you say so. I never knew of a phone that could do it prior to the 2010 iPhone. Skype+Video was added after FaceTime and I had been using iChat AV since 2004; I had also used Yahoo! Video Chat, and knew of no phones in that time frame that had video chat.

To that effect I didn't even have a data plan until the fall of 2007 since I didn't have any need to use data until the iOS browser was released on an iPhone! I had worked prior at HP on WAP phones, and actively avoided using WAP (which, in hindsight, tells me HP was probably on the wrong track there).

If you mean video chat in general, sure, we had been doing that for years using iChat on OS X, but laptops don't fit into purses or pockets and travel around the house as well when you're chasing down grandchildren.

and you could have been doing it for years on your cellphone too.

If you say so. I never knew of a phone that could do it prior to the 2010 iPhone. Skype+Video was added after FaceTime and I had been using iChat AV since 2004; I had also used Yahoo! Video Chat, and knew of no phones in that time frame that had video chat.

2005 Nokia 6680 could do videochat. If you count landline videochat I've seen devices that could do it in early 80's, know there were even earlier devices for it. Computer based videochat, seen it late 90's.

And they made less than that in the early months. No doubt they have a hit on their hands.

And great for the spanish bible guy. This in no way negates any points made.

And again--grossing $100,000 is NOTHING like making $100,000 at a job. First you have expenses, and then taxes (like I mentioned about SS tax), I think medicare is the same (where you have to pay both halves if self employeed). Then benefits like health insurance, 401k, etc.

If you mean video chat in general, sure, we had been doing that for years using iChat on OS X, but laptops don't fit into purses or pockets and travel around the house as well when you're chasing down grandchildren.

and you could have been doing it for years on your cellphone too.

If you say so. I never knew of a phone that could do it prior to the 2010 iPhone. Skype+Video was added after FaceTime and I had been using iChat AV since 2004; I had also used Yahoo! Video Chat, and knew of no phones in that time frame that had video chat.

To that effect I didn't even have a data plan until the fall of 2007 since I didn't have any need to use data until the iOS browser was released on an iPhone! I had worked prior at HP on WAP phones, and actively avoided using WAP (which, in hindsight, tells me HP was probably on the wrong track there).

Well...they certainly existed. Surprised you didn't know that.

I'm sure I knew it existed, but I'm also sure that there were no available products I knew existed at the same time. Internet research tells me that in 2005 only 10% of 200m US subscribers had 3G, and I was not one of them. The market was nascent. Were you using mobile videochat in the early 2000s?

That is weird; I use iMessage, Skype, FaceBook, and very rarely SMS. I don't see how anyone can live in only a single message ecosystem unless they happen to be very lucky.

I guess I am lucky. I don't use iMessage, Skype, or facebook for messages (I hardly use facebook at all).

I don't see why you would need more than one message system.

iMessage handles friends+family+sms for people without iMessage or FacebookFacebook handles friends+family you don't have in your phonebookSkype is strictly for work and who you don't have in your phonebook or Facebook

So knock out facebook because I don't give a shit about it and all of a sudden you are down to two. I don't need skype as I have zero need to video conference. I have unlimited texts so I don't care about how many I send. And all of a sudden you are down to just one.

Sure, you don't need to keep accounts separate. I like keeping iMessage strictly for family and close friends, Facebook for people I don't want to give out my email or phone number to, and Skype to people who need access to my work email and phone number.

Video conferencing is, I believe, available on all platforms, and if not yet on Facebook I'm sure will be soon.

I'm sure I knew it existed, but I'm also sure that there were no available products I knew existed at the same time. Internet research tells me that in 2005 only 10% of 200m US subscribers had 3G, and I was not one of them. The market was nascent. Were you using mobile videochat in the early 2000s?

I don't know about the US, but in Europe, video calling was touted as one of the original killer apps of UMTS. And unlike Facetime, Skype, etc, it actually was an industry standard (3GPP), so you could video call someone on T-Mobile with a Nokia N70 with your SE K600 on Vodafone in 2005.

But it never caught on. Initially most likely due to the very high per-second charges. But nowadays I believe video calling simply isn't really all that appealing. I certainly haven't seen my wife use Facetime again after some initial curiosity calls when she got her iPhone 4 over 2 years ago.

As rumored there is a Galaxy S4 running stock Android. Personally I wouldn't want to lose the extra TouchWiz features but clearly there are some people who would love this.

The price kind of kills it though. Might as well just get an AT&T one and unlock the bootloader. Unless not using ADB is a worth a lot of money to you I don't see the point.

Huh? It's only $10 more than buying it outright form AT&T, and it works with T-Mobile out of the box, which is good with their no-contract plans.

Yeah but the AT&T price is awful. You might as well just buy it subsidized.

Huh? T-Mobile's top-tier BYOD plan is $70/month before taxes. Buy a Google Galaxy up-front, and your two-year cost is ~$2330. $3170, if you go for three years on the same phone.

AT&T's top-tier subsidized plan is $140/month for the same features as T-Mo. Pay $200 for the Galaxy with that and the two-year cost is ~$3560. $5240 for three years, though you should be able to buy another top-tier phone for $200.

Also, that price form AT&T isn't terrible. Looking at Amazon, they're charging northward of $700 for the S4, and other carriers aren't far off. As far as I can tell, there's absolutely nothing terrible about Google's or AT&T's no-contract price for a Galaxy S4. They're just plain expensive.

Also, that price form AT&T isn't terrible. Looking at Amazon, they're charging northward of $700 for the S4, and other carriers aren't far off. As far as I can tell, there's absolutely nothing terrible about Google's or AT&T's no-contract price for a Galaxy S4. They're just plain expensive.

From the Apple lawsuit, AT&T paid about $500 for a top-end Galaxy S phone, and less over time. This isn't a great deal just because AT&T overcharges.

Now if they came out with a newer Nexus phone at $300 and increased distribution, that would have impact.

Maybe they're not so afraid of Samsung dominating Android sales after all. Not releasing a low-priced Nexus would also be a concession to Samsung.

Just releasing the same Nexus 4 but with increased distribution would be significant. LGbarely cracked 10m units last quarter; a $300 Nexus 4 should trivially be able to sell 10m units all by itself if Google sold it in more than 7 first world countries. Availability in India was just announced today, but at approximately $475, decidedly not a low end price. I guess LG needs to make a profit?

I'm sure I knew it existed, but I'm also sure that there were no available products I knew existed at the same time. Internet research tells me that in 2005 only 10% of 200m US subscribers had 3G, and I was not one of them. The market was nascent. Were you using mobile videochat in the early 2000s?

I don't know about the US, but in Europe, video calling was touted as one of the original killer apps of UMTS. And unlike Facetime, Skype, etc, it actually was an industry standard (3GPP), so you could video call someone on T-Mobile with a Nokia N70 with your SE K600 on Vodafone in 2005.

But it never caught on. Initially most likely due to the very high per-second charges. But nowadays I believe video calling simply isn't really all that appealing. I certainly haven't seen my wife use Facetime again after some initial curiosity calls when she got her iPhone 4 over 2 years ago.

In the US you just got crappy "video messaging" (at least on AT&T) that charged I believe by the second and was not live or 2-way.